The
words “right” and “left” are currently used to classify positions taken on
the greatest variety of themes. The most common use relates to matters of
a political, social or economic nature. However, these words may also
apply to ways of feeling or being, literature, the arts and the like.

In
fact, these terms have assumed such diverse and ambiguous meanings that
many observers believe they have lost any value as labels for classifying
ideological, cultural or moral positions.

In
spite of the talent, culture and fame of those who have already thought
this way for some time, “right” and “left” continue to be words in common
use and thus are indispensable for anyone who habitually does ideological
analyses.

This
fact appears to demonstrate that at the core of these words there is
something substantial, authentically expressive and even indispensable.
They must then be seriously considered until common usage coins other
terms to replace them.

I
propose to analyze that “something substantial” to check whether my
feeling for the words corresponds to my readers, and finally to that of
the general public.

*
* *

I begin
by noting that not everything is imprecise when considering the meaning of
“left” and “right.” There is a clear zone. Once this is defined, we can
detect the clue that will lead us step by step to cut through the
ambiguity and get to a final clarification of the matter.

The
clear zone is on the left. Consider the trilogy of the French Revolution:
liberty, equality and fraternity. Even today, the general consensus
will not hesitate to classify the leftist in these terms. Moreover,
the perfect and complete leftist does not just defend any liberty,
equality and fraternity, but total liberty, total equality and total
fraternity. He is essentially an anarchist in the etymological and radical
sense of the word (from the Greek “an” - without and “arch”- government)
with or without the connotation of violence or terrorism.

Moderate leftists
may label the total leftist as a follower of a utopian dream. None of them
would, however, deny the full leftist authenticity of this utopia.

Using
this standard of absolute leftism, one can easily devise a leftist scale
to classify a program or method. One can gauge leftist content by the more
a thing approaches or goes further away from total “an-archism.”

Leftism
defines itself in terms of the famous trilogy of the French Revolution:
liberty, equality and Fraternity.

For
example, the more effective and general the equality a socialist demands,
the more leftist he is. One who demands total equality is totally leftist.

Analogous affirmations can be made about another “value” of the trilogy of
1789. I refer especially to political liberalism. The more a liberal calls
for total liberty, the more leftist he is.

Of
course, there are certain contradictions between socialism and liberalism.
And these lead to objections to what I have just stated that are easy to
refute. The principal objection is that economic totalitarianism destroys
political freedom, and vice versa. But this contradiction exists only in
the intermediate stages. Neither socialism nor liberalism represent total
anarchism, although both can prepare the way for it. Moreover, both
absolute freedom and (especially) absolute equality can just as well lead
to anarchism.

Absolute equality promotes a general offensive by those who are or have
less against those who are or have more. In its turn, complete liberty
amounts to denying all authority and, therefore, all law. These two
so-different ways are not parallel lines that meet in infinity. However
contradictory these may seem to today’s run-of-the-mill moderate, total
equality and total liberty do converge toward a final “an-archic” point
where they meet and complement each other.

Thus,
according to the general consensus, leftism has both its final goal and
scale of values well defined.

*
* *

Now
that the “left” has been delineated, the question is whether the
“right” also has well-defined goals and values.

On this
point there is undeniable confusion. The key is to find a clue analogous
to that which we found on the left. Then we can go step by step toward
classifying the subtle nuances of what it means to be “rightist.”

The
words “right” and “left” arose in the political, social and economic
vocabulary of nineteenth century Europe. Leftism ideologically
participated in the thinking and work of a still recent and generally
quite defined phenomenon: the French Revolution. The left was not only a
volcanic negation of what seemed to be a dead tradition. Rather it was
increasingly the affirmation of an inexorable future. In the face of the
overwhelming Revolution, the right only really defined itself gradually,
in a groping and contradictory way (cf. Michel Denis, Les Royalistes de
la Mayenne et le Monde Moderne, Publications de l’Université de
Haute-Bretagne, 1977).

Thus
while the “right” defines itself as anti-leftist and “a fortiori” as
anti-anarchist, what does it affirm using the full rigor of logic?

I have
noted that anarchism essentially affirms that each and every inequality is
unjust to the point that the less the inequality, the less the injustice.
Liberty is also dear to anarchism, precisely because authority is in
itself a denial of equality.

Contrary to this, rightism affirms that inequality in itself is not
unjust. In fact, God created the universe where all beings are unequal
including and especially men. Injustice occurs when one imposes equality
on an order of things which God, for the very highest reasons, made
unequal (cf. Mt. 25, 14-30; 1 Cor. 12, 28-31; St. Thomas, Summa
contra Gentiles, Book III, Chapter LXXVII).

Hence,
justice is to be found in inequality.

It is
well to remember in passing that the rightist does not conclude that the
greater the inequality, the more perfect the justice. To leftist thinking,
the antithetical affirmation (the less the equality, the less the
injustice) is logical. Not so with the rightist position. There is a
glaring lack of symmetry between the leftist and rightist perspective.

Indeed
what the rightist affirms is that God did not create terrifying and
monstrous inequalities. Rather He created inequalities that were
proportional to the nature, well being and progress of each creature and
adequate for the general ordering of the universe. This is Christian
inequality.

Analogous considerations could be made about liberty in society and in the
universe.

I
insist that the standard of rightism is not an absolute inequality,
symmetrical to and opposed to absolute equality but rather the
proportional inequality explained above. In this way, rightism is defined.
The more a doctrine is contrary to the 1789 trilogy and approaches this
standard of harmonious and proportional inequality, the more rightist it
is.

Many
thinkers and men of action rose up against the Revolution in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and for this reason they were called
rightists. However, they often did not understand the essence of rightism.

Some of
these (or those who studied them) imagined that the label of rightism
could justify abysmal inequalities of a political, social, or chiefly
economic nature in the name of rightist consistency.

Other
“rightists” made concession to the egalitarian spirit because they
themselves were permeated by the very revolutionary principles against
which they fought. At times, others make concessions as a tactic that
served to advance their political careers. Consider the official
socialist character of Fascism and the not only official but very marked
socialist character of Nazism as examples.

In this
manner, the term “right” was not nearly as clear and precise as the term
“left.” Over the years, “rightism” came to embrace not only the true
rightism of Christian inspiration of sacral, hierarchical and harmonious
nature (cf. Plinio Corręa de Oliveira, Revolution and
Counterrevolution, American TFP, 1995 p.45). Rather, it also
served as a label for other “rightism” which mixed Christian tradition
with peculiar ideological principles (and experiences).

While
many of these so-called rightist currents had very important socialist
notes, everyday language ended up classifying them as rightist because the
public imagined they had a greater or lesser affinity with the ideal
Christian rightism I described above. After centuries of tradition,
everyone still maintains a conscious or subconscious perception of this
ideal to aid in this classification.

Thus,
to the right as to the left, there are definite boundaries from which one
may define all the intermediate nuances.

*
* *

The
term “sacral”
unexpectedly appeared in this article. Space does not allow me to show
what the central role of religion is, as I see it, in the authentic
rightist conception that I have just outlined. This is obviously my
conception and that of the TFP.

This
idea enters as almost as a postscript because I believe that a secular or
atheist rightism is absurd and that a universe and man without God is
unthinkable. This does not mean (extending the postscript even further)
that I, who am honored to believe - in principle - in the union of Church
and State, desire this concretely in our days…

About
this particular subject, I recommend reading the above-cited
Revolution and Counterrevolution for all those interested in
knowing the thinking of the TFP.